RAAM Suffers The Tragic Loss of One of its Greats



In article
<[email protected]>,
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The difference is,
> >> climbing an 8000 meter peak is inherently dangerous. Riding across
> >> America is not, many tourists survive it every year. The danger is
> >> partly caused by the structure of the race. If, for example, it
> >> mandated a four hour rest period every 24 hours, it would still be
> >> a race across America. There would still be hazards from traffic,
> >> but the sleep deprivation would be neutralized.
> >>
> >> Races stop if the risks are too high. The Mille Miglia stopped.
> >>
> >> Ben
> >> not a mountaineer

> >
> >
> > Why is climbing an 8000 meter peak inherently dangerous? Is it the
> > descent, afterwards? Or the grade going up? I agree on the sleep, I
> > wouldn't even drive a car in the shape they're in. There was a whole
> > family
> > wiped out here, last week, when they were driving to a speed boat
> > competition in California, in their RV. Guy went to sleep, went into a
> > ravine, and the jet fuel for the boats went off like a bomb.

>
> Perhaps because 8000 meters is where the death zone starts?


Dead zone starts at ~4300 m, the altitude where human metabolism
runs at a loss from insufficient O2.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps because 8000 meters is where the death zone starts?

>
> Dead zone starts at ~4300 m, the altitude where human metabolism
> runs at a loss from insufficient O2.



Dumbass -

I did a bike trip in Tibet where we were 14,500-17,500 feet for 3
weeks. Lost 15 lbs.

I don't know if I'd call it the Death Zone though. People were living
permanently at over 17,000 feet in the Rongbuk Valley, at the monastary
and at the North side Everest base camp. In the real Death Zone at over
8000 meters, people can't spend more than 1 or 2 days or they die. Is
that correct?

thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ben
> > has a minor obsession with fiascoes

>
> So what'd you think of that "Solar Sail" thing from a couple days ago?


It was a PR mission from the start. So, live by the hype,
die by the hype.

It is hard enough to get a one-off piece of complex equipment
working when it's on the ground. When it's on a big pack of
semi-controlled explosives heading into space ...
One interesting factoid is: while NASA is a big, often dumb,
clumsy organization with a cancer on it like the Nixon Presidency,
which often suffers catastrophic failures, other organizations
and companies that try to do similar things don't seem to do
that much better.

None of which means I want to be too flip about it. Hearing
from people who've worked for ten years on a project only to
have it burn up an hour after launch because some dinky
circuit's subcomponents never got tested end-to-end due to
budget cuts, mismanagement, or plain bad luck, it's a bitter
kind of humor. That's one reason I'm interested in fiascos,
to avoid them.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ben
> > > has a minor obsession with fiascoes

> >
> > So what'd you think of that "Solar Sail" thing from a couple days ago?

>
> It was a PR mission from the start. So, live by the hype,
> die by the hype.
>
> It is hard enough to get a one-off piece of complex equipment
> working when it's on the ground. When it's on a big pack of
> semi-controlled explosives heading into space ...


Having made parts for satellites, I have thought about that. The pieces
are always incredibly flimsy because they want the payload to be as light
as possible, so I wonder how the assemblies can survive the launch. Plus
testing the assembly here vs. how it'll work once it's in space.

> One interesting factoid is: while NASA is a big, often dumb,
> clumsy organization with a cancer on it like the Nixon Presidency,
> which often suffers catastrophic failures, other organizations
> and companies that try to do similar things don't seem to do
> that much better.


I imagine the same kinds of people (and thought processes) are at work
in all those places (and at all levels). The relative equality of the
catastrophes shouldn't be all that surprising.

> None of which means I want to be too flip about it. Hearing
> from people who've worked for ten years on a project only to
> have it burn up an hour after launch because some dinky
> circuit's subcomponents never got tested end-to-end due to
> budget cuts, mismanagement, or plain bad luck, it's a bitter
> kind of humor. That's one reason I'm interested in fiascos,
> to avoid them.


I think the UK/ESA's Beagle had more than its share of potentially
mission-ending mistakes, but at least it got to the target before it
vaporized.

Speaking of fiascos, check the 'burns out:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39674000/jpg/_39674361_pillinger203.jp
g

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> And here's the
>kicker - as one ascends big E, along the way lie the corpses of those that
>didn't make it down alive. That has to bring a very different mental aspect

to
>Everest that is not part of RAAM.


Do you mean no one buries or claims the bodies?
-------------
Alex
 
"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> And here's the
>>kicker - as one ascends big E, along the way lie the corpses of those that
>>didn't make it down alive. That has to bring a very different mental
>>aspect

> to
>>Everest that is not part of RAAM.

>
> Do you mean no one buries or claims the bodies?


In many cases, that's correct.
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:35:15 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> And here's the
>>kicker - as one ascends big E, along the way lie the corpses of those that
>>didn't make it down alive. That has to bring a very different mental aspect

>to
>>Everest that is not part of RAAM.

>
>Do you mean no one buries or claims the bodies?
>-------------
>Alex



Your local coroner isn't going up there to get them. And anyone else
who's going there is on a mission to make it to the top. The people on
their way back down are at the most dangerous point in the trip.

The bodies are the least of the mess. There is an estimated 10 tons of
grabage at the 26,300-foot Camp IV alone.

Nobody is any shape to bring that stuff down once you've gotten there.
Though there have been some environmental expeditions.

D
 
Jim Flom wrote:
> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >> And here's the
> >>kicker - as one ascends big E, along the way lie the corpses of those that
> >>didn't make it down alive. That has to bring a very different mental
> >>aspect to
> >>Everest that is not part of RAAM.

> >
> > Do you mean no one buries or claims the bodies?

>
> In many cases, that's correct.


The recent NY Times article about Ed Viesturs on the occasion of his
climbing all the 8000 meter peaks, and retiring from climbing 8000
meter peaks, had pretty vivid descriptions of passing perfectly
preserved bodies of climbers who looked as if they had just sat down or
taken a nap (not that one naps at 8000 meters). One description of a
climber's body whose only clue to its age was the 20-year-old style of
his gear, and another of a climber sitting there frozen, her hair
blowing in the wind.

You can't generally haul a body (or a live but incapacitated person)
down at that altitude.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> The recent NY Times article about Ed Viesturs on the occasion of his
> climbing all the 8000 meter peaks, and retiring from climbing 8000
> meter peaks, had pretty vivid descriptions of passing perfectly
> preserved bodies of climbers who looked as if they had just sat down or
> taken a nap (not that one naps at 8000 meters). One description of a
> climber's body whose only clue to its age was the 20-year-old style of
> his gear, and another of a climber sitting there frozen, her hair
> blowing in the wind.
>
> You can't generally haul a body (or a live but incapacitated person)
> down at that altitude.





Dumbass -

You underestimate the power of the human spirit.

Surely a FRAAM rider could haul one of those climbing wussies down.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jim Flom wrote:
>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> >> And here's the
>> >>kicker - as one ascends big E, along the way lie the corpses of those
>> >>that
>> >>didn't make it down alive. That has to bring a very different mental
>> >>aspect to
>> >>Everest that is not part of RAAM.
>> >
>> > Do you mean no one buries or claims the bodies?

>>
>> In many cases, that's correct.

>
> The recent NY Times article about Ed Viesturs on the occasion of his
> climbing all the 8000 meter peaks, and retiring from climbing 8000
> meter peaks, had pretty vivid descriptions of passing perfectly
> preserved bodies of climbers who looked as if they had just sat down or
> taken a nap (not that one naps at 8000 meters). One description of a
> climber's body whose only clue to its age was the 20-year-old style of
> his gear, and another of a climber sitting there frozen, her hair
> blowing in the wind.


They found George Mallory's body in good condition a few years ago. He
disappeared in an atempt to summit Everest in 1924. "A 1999 expedition
found Mallory's frozen body 27,000 feet up Everest's north face. The body
was remarkably well preserved, but offered no evidence that Mallory had made
it to the summit before his death."
http://www.who2.com/georgemallory.html
 
"Jim Flom " <[email protected]> writes:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Jim Flom wrote:
> >> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >> >> And here's the
> >> >>kicker - as one ascends big E, along the way lie the corpses of those
> >> >>that
> >> >>didn't make it down alive. That has to bring a very different mental
> >> >>aspect to
> >> >>Everest that is not part of RAAM.
> >> >
> >> > Do you mean no one buries or claims the bodies?
> >>
> >> In many cases, that's correct.

> >
> > The recent NY Times article about Ed Viesturs on the occasion of his
> > climbing all the 8000 meter peaks, and retiring from climbing 8000
> > meter peaks, had pretty vivid descriptions of passing perfectly
> > preserved bodies of climbers who looked as if they had just sat down or
> > taken a nap (not that one naps at 8000 meters). One description of a
> > climber's body whose only clue to its age was the 20-year-old style of
> > his gear, and another of a climber sitting there frozen, her hair
> > blowing in the wind.

>
> They found George Mallory's body in good condition a few years ago. He
> disappeared in an atempt to summit Everest in 1924. "A 1999 expedition
> found Mallory's frozen body 27,000 feet up Everest's north face. The body
> was remarkably well preserved, but offered no evidence that Mallory had made
> it to the summit before his death."
> http://www.who2.com/georgemallory.html


If they could just find the damned camera!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/exploration/everest/features/everest2000/bbc.shtml

-Gerard
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps because 8000 meters is where the death zone starts?

> >
> > Dead zone starts at ~4300 m, the altitude where human metabolism
> > runs at a loss from insufficient O2.

>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I did a bike trip in Tibet where we were 14,500-17,500 feet for 3
> weeks. Lost 15 lbs.
>
> I don't know if I'd call it the Death Zone though. People were living
> permanently at over 17,000 feet in the Rongbuk Valley, at the monastary
> and at the North side Everest base camp. In the real Death Zone at over
> 8000 meters, people can't spend more than 1 or 2 days or they die. Is
> that correct?
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.


I do not know enough about folks who live permanently at those
altitudes, and will not speak for them in the following.

I am being conservative. Nobody can acclimate permanently above
5000m (16400 ft). Temporary "acclimatization" to 6000m (19700 ft)
is possible for short periods, but one still operates at a loss.
Acclimatization evaporates in a few days when the subject returns
to sea level.

Pilots should have supplementary oxygen above 12500 ft because of
loss of fine motor control and the detriment to decision making.

Someone going from sea level to 15000 feet in a few hours will be
running at a loss. Could get very sick. Could get very very sick,
if you know what I mean.

At 7000 m (23000 feet) unconsciousness rapidly ensues. The unaided
subject dies.

So why not simply breath more to compensate for the lower partial
pressure of O2? Because you will then dump too much CO2, the blood
pH rises, and unconsciousness ensues. This is the funny little
feedback mechanism that causes Cheyne-Stokes breathing.

The exact correct blood pH level is vital. All our chemical
reactions must have the correct pH to balance one another. As you
all know, CO2 dissolved in water makes the water acidic (lowers
pH).
Subject travels rapidly to high altitude for which subject is not
acclimated.
Subject is not getting enough O2 so subject breathes faster.
Blood CO2 is dumped, and in the course of time the high pH blood
reaches the sensor in the brain.
Brain tells the diaphragm to slow breathing to increase CO2.
Breathing slows.
Blood O2 plummets.
Rinse, lather, repeat.

Often people who go to high altitude will wake out of deep slumber
with a start and find that they have stopped breating at all.

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps because 8000 meters is where the death zone starts?
> > >
> > > Dead zone starts at ~4300 m, the altitude where human metabolism
> > > runs at a loss from insufficient O2.

> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > I did a bike trip in Tibet where we were 14,500-17,500 feet for 3
> > weeks. Lost 15 lbs.
> >
> > I don't know if I'd call it the Death Zone though. People were living
> > permanently at over 17,000 feet in the Rongbuk Valley, at the monastary
> > and at the North side Everest base camp. In the real Death Zone at over
> > 8000 meters, people can't spend more than 1 or 2 days or they die. Is
> > that correct?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.

>


[...]

>
> I am being conservative. Nobody can acclimate permanently above
> 5000m (16400 ft). Temporary "acclimatization" to 6000m (19700 ft)
> is possible for short periods, but one still operates at a loss.
> Acclimatization evaporates in a few days when the subject returns
> to sea level.


One more thing.
As for folks who regularly climb at altitude, they
* Are congenitally gifted.
* Are in good shape.
* Have practiced this sport.
* Have specific methods to acclimate rapidly and effectively.
* Spend the minimum time at altitude.
* Have a vast pharmacopoeia.
* Still run at a loss.

[...]

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps because 8000 meters is where the death zone starts?
> > >
> > > Dead zone starts at ~4300 m, the altitude where human metabolism
> > > runs at a loss from insufficient O2.

> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > I did a bike trip in Tibet where we were 14,500-17,500 feet for 3
> > weeks. Lost 15 lbs.
> >
> > I don't know if I'd call it the Death Zone though. People were living
> > permanently at over 17,000 feet in the Rongbuk Valley, at the monastary
> > and at the North side Everest base camp. In the real Death Zone at over
> > 8000 meters, people can't spend more than 1 or 2 days or they die. Is
> > that correct?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.

>
> I do not know enough about folks who live permanently at those
> altitudes, and will not speak for them in the following.
>
> I am being conservative. Nobody can acclimate permanently above
> 5000m (16400 ft). Temporary "acclimatization" to 6000m (19700 ft)
> is possible for short periods, but one still operates at a loss.
> Acclimatization evaporates in a few days when the subject returns
> to sea level.



The people living in the Rongbuk Valley were a bit higher than that -
up to 17,500 ft. It was a little weird to see people living that high -
almost no vegetation, but yaks are able to feed on the sparse fields
and one of the Tibetans tried to trade us some tiny potatoes for some
shoes. The potatoes were bite-sized.

At 16,000 ft. Tibetan settlements are common. Mostly rural. It's pretty
obvious how much longer humans have been in Asia compared to N. and S.
America - they've infiltrated every nook capable of supporting life. It
was a little mind-boggling seeing where some of the "homes" were - rock
dwellings up on a cliff @ 17,000 ft. - it must be a hard way to make a
living. I'd hate to see what their winters are like.
 
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:53:31 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I think mountaineering is more hazardous and probably more
>deadly than RAAM in so far as deaths are concerned, per capita. RAaM is
>certainly on the way to catching up.



From what I can discern, the sport that is most likely to get you
killed is equestrian. Of course, that assumes that you consider the
rider as the athletes and not the horse.
 
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:04:42 -0400, Jack Hollis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:53:31 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> I think mountaineering is more hazardous and probably more
>>deadly than RAAM in so far as deaths are concerned, per capita. RAaM is
>>certainly on the way to catching up.

>
>
>From what I can discern, the sport that is most likely to get you
>killed is equestrian. Of course, that assumes that you consider the
>rider as the athletes and not the horse.



You might be surprised at what good shape jockeys are in. Cross
country events, still relatively taxing. Harness racing.... not so
much.

D
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:


> > You can't generally haul a body (or a live but incapacitated person)
> > down at that altitude.


> Dumbass -
>
> You underestimate the power of the human spirit.
>
> Surely a FRAAM rider could haul one of those climbing wussies down.


Indeed, I am a Dumbass. I failed to take into account the commitment
and ingenuity of RAAM riders, who surely could find a way to get a
follow RV up and down the North Ridge.
 

Similar threads